Ranking Architects

[Niall C]

Scott

Re Donald Steel, I think he also claims to be the only architect to have worked on all the Open rota courses. I've no idea if that's true in terms of other architects portfolio's but certainly quite a claim. He certainly is/was a very fine writer although you might be better place to judge that than me.

Niall

[Clyde Johnson]

I've no idea how they decide when to credit architects that have come-in later on, but I bet they don't credit consulting architects that have told clubs to leave well alone (or just stick to light-handed 'polish' work)!?

[Mike_Young]

Scott

Re Donald Steel, I think he also claims to be the only architect to have worked on all the Open rota courses. I've no idea if that's true in terms of other architects portfolio's but certainly quite a claim. He certainly is/was a very fine writer although you might be better place to judge that than me.

Niall

Queestion?  If some dude "architect" decides he wants to give a club a masterplan and he gives it to them at no fee and then places it on his website or he suggest changes and sends them some drawings of such...did he do a masterplan or conceptual changes for the club?   .  has happened more than once...

[Ted Sturges]

I started with how many courses each architect was credited with in the World Top 100 (that was to be part of my scoring system).  I got the following data (this was from about a year and a half ago)...  Colt (7), Mackenzie (9), Old Tom Morris (6), Coore & Crenshaw (4), C.B. MacDonald (2), Tom Doak (5), A.W. Tillinghast (7), Donald Ross (4), Seth Raynor (4), Perry Maxwell (2), Robert Trent Jones (2), George Thomas (2), Pete Dye (6), Jack Nicklaus (3), Tom Simpson (3), Herbert Fowler (2), and Stanley Thompson (2).  I limited my list to architects who had at least 2 in the World Top 100 at the time I examined that list (again, over a year ago).


1.  My first score was to be based on how many are among the best 100 courses in the world.
2.  My second score was to be based on the highest quality of one's work.  For me, I am pretty much in agreement with the Doak scale, so I would apply that scale and give a second score to architects that had courses that were 9's or above on the Doak scale.
3.  My third score was to be based on how prolific the architect was, and my measure was going to be not only how many courses did they build, but how many "good" courses did they build. I settled on..."how many Doak 7's or better did they build during their careers?".  That to me, is an important measuring stick.  Pete Dye and Donald Ross built a lot of courses, and no doubt have a good list of Doak 7's or better.  Both of them would score high in category 3.  But...this is where my project lost steam...how to sort through each man's work and come up with a tally in this section of scoring, was going to be a big chore, and I was probably not going to be familiar enough will the complete body of work of each man to assess how many 7's or better they had.


But to me, those 3 categories would provide a pretty accurate and reasonably thorough measure of how one would want to rank the best architects of all-time.


Knowing what I believe to be true using these 3 criteria, my top 10 would look like this:


1.  Mackenzie
2.  Colt
3.  Old Tom Morris
4.  Tom Doak
5.  Seth Raynor
6.  Coore & Crenshaw
7.  A.W. Tillinghast
8.  Donald Ross
9.  George Thomas
10.  Pete Dye




TS

First of all, we rank everything.  To think that we shouldn't rank golf architects is preposterous.


I'm going back to my criteria above.  Seems like nobody else liked it, but I think it checks all the boxes.  Start with who built the best golf courses in the world (where else would you start?).  Give credit to those who built more of them than everybody else.  Then give additional points for the highest quality courses in the tops in the world list, then give additional points for breadth of work.  That is all.


TS

[corey miller]

Even though the Rees Jones work at Sleepy Hollow was architectural malpractice he still continues to proudly tout it as part of his portfolio of "remodeled" work.


And along the same line, Ken Dye (who I am sure got paid) submitted a master plan to the same club in 2001 that was never implemented (once thoughtful people actually attempted to understand it) and was also architectural malpractice and he continues to list it on his site as remodel work.


Being intimately familiar with both the Rees work and the Dye plan I am quite surprised that both have the temerity to continue to "highlight" this club relationship. 


For Rees, who I have met and questioned about the work....I know he has no shame. For Dye, who I have never met I just say "whats up with that"? 


 

[John Kirk]

I started with how many courses each architect was credited with in the World Top 100 (that was to be part of my scoring system).  I got the following data (this was from about a year and a half ago)...  Colt (7), Mackenzie (9), Old Tom Morris (6), Coore & Crenshaw (4), C.B. MacDonald (2), Tom Doak (5), A.W. Tillinghast (7), Donald Ross (4), Seth Raynor (4), Perry Maxwell (2), Robert Trent Jones (2), George Thomas (2), Pete Dye (6), Jack Nicklaus (3), Tom Simpson (3), Herbert Fowler (2), and Stanley Thompson (2).  I limited my list to architects who had at least 2 in the World Top 100 at the time I examined that list (again, over a year ago).


1.  My first score was to be based on how many are among the best 100 courses in the world.
2.  My second score was to be based on the highest quality of one's work.  For me, I am pretty much in agreement with the Doak scale, so I would apply that scale and give a second score to architects that had courses that were 9's or above on the Doak scale.
3.  My third score was to be based on how prolific the architect was, and my measure was going to be not only how many courses did they build, but how many "good" courses did they build. I settled on..."how many Doak 7's or better did they build during their careers?".  That to me, is an important measuring stick.  Pete Dye and Donald Ross built a lot of courses, and no doubt have a good list of Doak 7's or better.  Both of them would score high in category 3.  But...this is where my project lost steam...how to sort through each man's work and come up with a tally in this section of scoring, was going to be a big chore, and I was probably not going to be familiar enough will the complete body of work of each man to assess how many 7's or better they had.


But to me, those 3 categories would provide a pretty accurate and reasonably thorough measure of how one would want to rank the best architects of all-time.


Knowing what I believe to be true using these 3 criteria, my top 10 would look like this:


1.  Mackenzie
2.  Colt
3.  Old Tom Morris
4.  Tom Doak
5.  Seth Raynor
6.  Coore & Crenshaw
7.  A.W. Tillinghast
8.  Donald Ross
9.  George Thomas
10.  Pete Dye




TS

First of all, we rank everything.  To think that we shouldn't rank golf architects is preposterous.


I'm going back to my criteria above.  Seems like nobody else liked it, but I think it checks all the boxes.  Start with who built the best golf courses in the world (where else would you start?).  Give credit to those who built more of them than everybody else.  Then give additional points for the highest quality courses in the tops in the world list, then give additional points for breadth of work.  That is all.


TS

Hi Ted,

I'll give your post some attention, as it closely reflects my sentiments.

I might change criteria #1 to include the top 200-300 courses in the world.

At the heart of the argument is the value of a great course compared to an ordinary course.  If there are 30,000 courses worldwide, the best 300 are the top 1%.  Should they be valued 100 times better than the bottom 300 courses?  I can make arguments that they are either 1,000 times or 10 times more valuable.  I don't think this value assessment has been fully addressed yet.

Choosing criteria #3 to award points for Doak 7s instead of Doak 6s probably changes the list considerably.  We've discussed Doak 6s before, and there's a substantial difference to character between the two levels of golf courses.  I think you're making the right call here.

[David Davis]

I suppose my question to everyone would be, aside from the numbering of 1-100 did anyone actually take the time to dive into the extensive research and try to learn something from the great detail and course lists that are provided in this "listing"?


I can't imagine how much work went into this and that alone is hugely commendable. However, on top of that I've not personally seen such a complete list with detailed information that is as easily accessible outside of perhaps purchasing several books. If you know of one please share it.


To me it's ludicrous to suggest that because you don't like or agree with the numbers of this list you are not going to look at it. Unless of course you already know more about all these architects than the author/researcher. After all this is supposed to be a site about Golf Course Architecture so if detailed information about Golf Course Architects isn't of interest I guess I'm stumped.
[size=78%] [/size]

[William_G]

I suppose my question to everyone would be, aside from the numbering of 1-100 did anyone actually take the time to dive into the extensive research and try to learn something from the great detail and course lists that are provided in this "listing"?


I can't imagine how much work went into this and that alone is hugely commendable. However, on top of that I've not personally seen such a complete list with detailed information that is as easily accessible outside of perhaps purchasing several books. If you know of one please share it.


To me it's ludicrous to suggest that because you don't like or agree with the numbers of this list you are not going to look at it. Unless of course you already know more about all these architects than the author/researcher. After all this is supposed to be a site about Golf Course Architecture so if detailed information about Golf Course Architects isn't of interest I guess I'm stumped.

very good

[William_G]

Back in high school, my parents gave me a copy of Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract.


Of course, he faced the same dilemma.


His solution was to offer two separate lists: Career Value and Peak Value.

That's one of my favorite books.


However, as I mentioned above, I don't think Career Value in golf architecture means much once you go past a certain # of courses, unless you just want to honor guys that had a great career. 


Example:  Jerry Mathews designed around 100 courses in Michigan, so how would you compare his career to mine, or to Mike DeVries?

ranking and comparing, LOL


style?


region?


era?


volume?


popularity?


personality/relationships? respectful?


longevity?


innovation?


is it the golf course architect or the owner of the course? (eg. no wine w/o the grapes 4HS)


WTFCs except TD?


all good banter, let's play


cheers

[Ian Andrew]

It's not what you've seen, that matters, it's what you haven't seen that creates the problem.

Whether no longer in existence, or other examples of their work, people tend to base their opinions on small sample sizes. That never works very well.

[Sven Nilsen]

I suppose my question to everyone would be, aside from the numbering of 1-100 did anyone actually take the time to dive into the extensive research and try to learn something from the great detail and course lists that are provided in this "listing"?


I can't imagine how much work went into this and that alone is hugely commendable. However, on top of that I've not personally seen such a complete list with detailed information that is as easily accessible outside of perhaps purchasing several books. If you know of one please share it.


To me it's ludicrous to suggest that because you don't like or agree with the numbers of this list you are not going to look at it. Unless of course you already know more about all these architects than the author/researcher. After all this is supposed to be a site about Golf Course Architecture so if detailed information about Golf Course Architects isn't of interest I guess I'm stumped.

I did.  The "detailed information" you note as the result of "extensive research" is replete with errors.  They could do better.

[David Davis]

I did.  The "detailed information" you note as the result of "extensive research" is replete with errors.  They could do better.

Sven, that's great. I don't know enough about all of them in detail to be able to pick out these errors but I know that the head editor Keith Baxter is certainly open to opinions, suggestions and most certainly rectifications for any errors that exist there. I know this is seen as a long term project rather than a sprint.


But really cool you are one of the few that took the time to look through the information.

[Forrest Richardson]

Very neat to see Tom D, Gil, Bill C, Mike Hurdzan, etc. on the list. To me it would seem logical to have two lists — one of the dead guys and one of the living. Or, perhaps a modern and classic — like Golfweek does. In the meanwhile I think that I'll explain to my family that I'm probably somewhere near "110th," at least that will make me feel better

[Ben Stephens]

I would not have rankings for architects.


Would prefer something like the Michelin Guide for Chefs/Restaurants equivalent for golf architects. Similar to the Arble system for marking golf courses themselves. 


Something like


3 star - world class
2 star - one of best in region
1 star - one of best in particular country

[Jeff Schley]

Very neat to see Tom D, Gil, Bill C, Mike Hurdzan, etc. on the list. To me it would seem logical to have two lists — one of the dead guys and one of the living. Or, perhaps a modern and classic — like Golfweek does. In the meanwhile I think that I'll explain to my family that I'm probably somewhere near "110th," at least that will make me feel better

Forrest you have their love, which makes you #1 to them.
I agree it seems plausible to have classic and modern separated, however we need to STOP giving credit for restorations as design credit.  Only significant renovations or new designs! Sign my petition.